Cheongju District Court 2012Guhap442 (O4, 2012)

Cho High Court Decision 201Na4781 ( December 08, 2011)

No good faith or negligence of the Plaintiff may be recognized when the Plaintiff, as a gas station supplier, receives a false tax invoice from the supplier.

The measures taken by the Plaintiff, which had been operating a gas station since 2008, were investigated directly into the appearance of the other party to the transaction, but did not reach the actual verification of the location of the business place, business facilities, or the distribution route, etc. of goods supplied by the supplier, and it was found that the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing the name of the actual supplier.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(Cheongju)Revocation of a disposition imposing value-added tax 2012Nu455

AA

Head of Chungcheong Tax Office

Cheongju District Court Decision 2012Guhap442 Decided June 14, 2012

August 14, 2013

September 11, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The part of the imposition of OOO on August 10, 201 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on August 10, 2011 is revoked.

1. Case summary

"A. From around 2008, the Plaintiff operated a gas station in the name of OOO 254-13 to BB gas station", and "(b) the Plaintiff received five tax invoices of OO 2010 from CC(hereinafter "CC") in the first taxable period of value added tax, and deducted the input tax amount from the output tax amount, and reported and paid the first taxable value added tax in 2010. (c) The Defendant deducted the input tax amount from the input tax amount on August 10, 201 to the Plaintiff on the ground that each of the tax invoices in this case was different from the fact, and did not provide any other tax invoices, and did not provide any evidence No. 16 of the evidence No. 2010 to the effect that the Plaintiff calculated the value added tax (including additional tax, and did not provide any evidence No. 17) and evidence No. 4 of Gap's whole evidence No. 16.

(d) Related Acts;

The entries in the attached Table-related Acts shall be as follows.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) Each of the instant tax invoices is the purchase tax invoices received through normal real transactions, and cannot be deemed as false tax invoices, and should be included in the details of deduction of the relevant input tax amount.

2) Domestic and other tax invoices of this case are different from the facts, and the plaintiff did not know it and did not know it, and the purport of appeal and the purport of claim in the disposition of this case are unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Whether each of the tax invoices of this case is false

The meaning that the entries of the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts, and where the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and where there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs is liable for tax payment in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that the necessary entries of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the person to whom the goods or service is actually supplied or supplied, and the price and time of the transaction, etc., regardless of the formal entries of the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 1

In light of the above legal principles, the whole purport of the argument is comprehensively taken into account the health stand and evidence Nos. 2 through 4 with respect to the instant case, andCC can recognize the fact that only the so-called data that issued the processed tax invoice and did not supply oil to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, each of the instant tax invoices received by the Plaintiff fromCC is different from the fact that the supplier entered differently, and its contents are different from the fact.

2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier and the actual supplier under the tax invoice are not aware of the fact that the supplier and the actual supplier were not aware of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the input tax invoice was issued and delivered, and that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier was not negligent, the input tax invoice shall be deducted or refundable, and the supplier shall be attested by the party asserting the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002; 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009; 201Du2211, Dec. 27, 2011). In such a case, it is difficult to ascertain the beneficiary’s name or actual supplier’s name in light of the supplier’s specific route in which the goods or services were supplied and the actual supplier’s trade practices in the relevant industry, and the supplier’s name or actual supplier’s name is not suspected.

B) We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

The facts are acknowledged that there are some transaction practices that receive the oil product in the first to 8, and that there is a business registration certificate, the copy of the passbook in the name of the corporation, and the fact that there are some deficiencies or defects in the entries in the first to Doctrine, the first to Doctrine, and the second to Doctrine, the second to Doctrine, the second to Doctrine, the second to Doctrine, the second to Doctrine, the second to Doctrine, the second to Doctrine, and the second to Do

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing and not knowing the name ofCC solely based on the above facts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① According to Gap evidence 9 through 11, and Eul evidence 2.3, the issuer of each pre-sale list received by the plaintiff in connection with each of the tax invoices of this case is the FFF (hereinafter referred to as "FF"), andCC receives purchase tax invoices equivalent to the FFFF in the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2010, and it is recognized that all of the above tax invoices were issued without real transactions and the FFFF oil storage was not actually used. (2) The Plaintiff, on its own, through the instant complaint, knew that the former supplier had no tax invoices, and that there was no doubt that the former supplier had no tax invoices, and that there was no concern that the supplier would have carried out the subsequent transaction at the market price, and that there was no concern that the supplier would have carried out the subsequent transaction at the time of the first sale of goods, and that there was no concern that the supplier would have carried out the subsequent transaction at the market price.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of the first instance that makes the conclusion with it is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.